From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:35:42 +1100 Message-ID: From: Bruce Ellis To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54eecc64265d604cf0b7cff Subject: Re: [9fans] go forth and ulong no more! Topicbox-Message-UUID: dd574b0e-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --bcaec54eecc64265d604cf0b7cff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 i think that go's scalar types would work better. also usize is a bit dicky. brucee On Nov 22, 2012 12:23 PM, "erik quanstrom" wrote: > On Wed Nov 21 19:19:21 EST 2012, benavento@gmail.com wrote: > > hola, > > > > usize, really? > > > > any reason not use this opportunity to join the world and use inttypes.h > or stdint.h format? > > have you read the opengroup pubs? > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/stdint.h.html > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604599/basedefs/inttypes.h.html > > i don't see any advantage to using whatever types these guys are using. > when porting things from plan 9, it's good to have different type names. > the assumptions of various systems differ. when porting things to plan 9, > you're likely going to be using ape anyway. > > these headers are missing a type representing physical memory, and Rune. > no, i'm never going to consider using wchar_t instead. > > yet they have types we do not want such as int_{least,fast} and int_max_t. > they seem to be a trap set by greybeards for unsuspecting young > programmers. > one could hold this kind of thing up as a reason that c is an old and > broken language. > > and then there's the printf macros. oh, joy. > > i'm sure that others could back this up with more inteligent reasoning. > i'm just > prone to rant (had you noticed) when i see some of this stuff. > > - erik > > --bcaec54eecc64265d604cf0b7cff Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

i think that go's scalar types would work better. also usize is=C2= =A0 a bit dicky.

brucee

On Nov 22, 2012 12:23 PM, "erik quanstrom&q= uot; <quanstro@quanstro.net= > wrote:
On Wed Nov 21 19:19:21 EST 2012, ben= avento@gmail.com wrote:
> hola,
>
> usize, really?
>
> any reason not use this opportunity to join the world and use inttypes= .h or stdint.h format?

have you read the opengroup pubs?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://pubs.opengroup.= org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/stdint.h.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://pubs.opengrou= p.org/onlinepubs/009604599/basedefs/inttypes.h.html

i don't see any advantage to using whatever types these guys are using.=
when porting things from plan 9, it's good to have different type names= .
the assumptions of various systems differ. =C2=A0when porting things to pla= n 9,
you're likely going to be using ape anyway.

these headers are missing a type representing physical memory, and Rune. no, i'm never going to consider using wchar_t instead.

yet they have types we do not want such as int_{least,fast} and int_max_t.<= br> they seem to be a trap set by greybeards for unsuspecting young programmers= .
one could hold this kind of thing up as a reason that c is an old and broke= n language.

and then there's the printf macros. =C2=A0oh, joy.

i'm sure that others could back this up with more inteligent reasoning.= =C2=A0i'm just
prone to rant (had you noticed) when i see some of this stuff.

- erik

--bcaec54eecc64265d604cf0b7cff--